Mind and Language 19 (3):334-358 (2004)
AbstractThe structure of words is often thought to provide important evidence regarding the structure of concepts. At the same time, most contemporary linguists posit a great deal of structure in words. Such a trend makes some atomists about concepts uncomfortable. The details of linguistic methodology undermine several strategies for avoiding positing structure in words. I conclude by arguing that there is insufficient evidence to hold that word-structure bears any interesting relation to the structure of concepts.
Similar books and articles
Actor-observer asymmetries in explanations of behavior: New answers to an old question.Bertram F. Malle, Joshua Knobe & S. Nelson - 2007 - Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 9 (4):491-514.
Structure with Fast Elimination of Quantifiers.Mihai Prunescu - 2006 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 71 (1):321 - 328.
Conceptual change.Paul Thagard - 2003 - In L. Nadel (ed.), Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science. Nature Publishing Group.
Whither structured representation?Arthur B. Markman & Eric Dietrich - 1999 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (4):626-627.
Impossible Words Again: Or Why Beds Break but Not Make.John Collins - 2011 - Mind and Language 26 (2):234-260.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
The ontology of words: a structural approach.Ryan M. Nefdt - 2019 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 62 (8):877-911.
Meaning, Concepts, and the Lexicon.Michael Glanzberg - 2011 - Croatian Journal of Philosophy 11 (1):1-29.
The Empirical Case Against Analyticity: Two Options for Concept Pragmatists.Bradley Rives - 2009 - Minds and Machines 19 (2):199-227.
References found in this work
Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use.Noam Chomsky - 1986 - Prager.